Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lumanlaw V. Peralta: *
The Facts
The Issues
First Issue:
Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial
Second Issue:
Mandamus as the Proper Remedy
*
GR No. 164953, February 13, 2006, per Panganiban, CJ.
[1]
Decision, pp. 3-8.
[2]
Id. at 6-8.
[3]
Id. at 8-9.
[4]
First Division. The Decision was concurred in by
Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-
Martinez, and Minita V. Chico-Nazario. Justice Romeo J.
Callejo Sr. was on leave.
[5]
Decision, pp. 11-12.
[6]
Id. at 14.
[7]
Id. at 15.
[8]
Id. at 15-18.
[9]
Sec. 1(b) of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
[10]
Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, Rule 3.09, requires
judges to organize and supervise the court personnel to
ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business x x x.
[11]
Decision, pp. 18-19.
[12]
Id. at 25.
[13]
Id. at 18-21.
[14]
Id. at 21.
[15]
Id. at 21-22.
[16]
Id. at 22 (citing Himagan v. People, 237 SCRA 538,
October 7, 1994; Acebedo v. Hon. Sarmiento, 146 Phil 820,
December 16, 1970; Esguerra v. De la Costa, 66 Phil 134,
August 30, 1938).
[17]
Id. at 22-23.
[18]
Id. at 23-25.
[19]
Id. at 25-26.
Chapter 23
Lumanlaw V. Peralta: *
The Facts
Petitioner Lumanlaw was charged with illegal
possession of a dangerous drug in November 2002.
He was detained in the Manila City Jail by virtue of a
Commitment Order. From the time of his arrest in
2002 up to the filing of the instant Petition in 2004,
his arraignment was postponed a total of 14 times
for various reasons, such as the absence of
petitioners counsel, the trial judges unavailability,
and the jail wardens failure to bring him to court. [1]
First Issue:
Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial
The 30-day period for an arraignment provided in
the Speedy Trial Act is not absolute. Judicial
proceedings do not exist in a vacuum, but have to
contend with the realities of everyday life. Rather
than merely making mathematical calculations of
periods that have elapsed between stages, one
should consider if the delays were vexatious,
capricious, oppressive, or unjustified. [5]
Second Issue:
Mandamus as the Proper Remedy
*
GR No. 164953, February 13, 2006, per Panganiban, CJ.
[1]
Decision, pp. 3-8.
[2]
Id. at 6-8.
[3]
Id. at 8-9.
[4]
First Division. The Decision was concurred in by
Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-
Martinez, and Minita V. Chico-Nazario. Justice Romeo J.
Callejo Sr. was on leave.
[5]
Decision, pp. 11-12.
[6]
Id. at 14.
[7]
Id. at 15.
[8]
Id. at 15-18.
[9]
Sec. 1(b) of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
[10]
Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, Rule 3.09, requires
judges to organize and supervise the court personnel to
ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business x x x.
[11]
Decision, pp. 18-19.
[12]
Id. at 25.
[13]
Id. at 18-21.
[14]
Id. at 21.
[15]
Id. at 21-22.
[16]
Id. at 22 (citing Himagan v. People, 237 SCRA 538,
October 7, 1994; Acebedo v. Hon. Sarmiento, 146 Phil 820,
December 16, 1970; Esguerra v. De la Costa, 66 Phil 134,
August 30, 1938).
[17]
Id. at 22-23.
[18]
Id. at 23-25.
[19]
Id. at 25-26.